Lessons learned in ICILS 2013 countries - the case of Germany Author: Birgit Eickelmann, NRC Presenter: Eckhard Klieme, GA Representative IEA General Assembly 2015 6 October 2015 Mexico City, Mexico ICILS 2013 in Germany Prof. Dr. Wilfried Bos Prof. Dr. Birgit Eickelmann National Research Coordinator (NRC) National Research Coordinator (NRC) TU Dortmund University Dr. Julia Gerick University of Paderborn National Project Manager TU Dortmund University National Consortium ICILS 2013 German Institute for International Educational Research Prof. Dr. Frank Goldhammer University of Hamburg Prof. Dr. Knut Schwippert Funding Humboldt-University Berlin Federal ministry of Dr. Heike Schaumburg education Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education Dr. Martin Senkbeil European Commission (co-funding of IEA fee) 2 Outline 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 and implications for the national educational system provided by the German national study center 2. Dissemination of ICILS findings media, scientific community and practitioners 3. Implications of ICILS on the policy level shifts in educational agenda on national and federal state level 4. Outlook 3 Outline 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 and implications for the national educational system provided by the German national study center 2. Implications of ICILS on the policy level shifts in educational agenda on national and federal state level 3. Dissemination of ICILS findings media, scientific community and practitioners 4. Outlook 4 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 Participants I II III IV V Czech Republic Canada (Ontario) International comparison of Australia 1 Denmark Grade 8 students’ average Poland Norway (Grade 9) computer and information Republic of Korea 1 Netherlands literacy in ICILS 2013 Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador) 1 Switzerland RG EU Germany • Average student score in Slovak Republic Russian Federation Germany: 523 1 HongKong SAR RG OECD • Average Ref. Group EU: 525 Croatia Slovenia • International Average: 500 Internat. Average Lithuania Chile 1 Argentinia (Buenos Aires) Thailand Turkey 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Fraillon et al., 2014 Percentiles of performance: 5% 25% 75% 95% Bos, Eickelmann & Gerick, 2014 5 Mean and Confidence Interval (± 2 SE) 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 ParticipantA II III IV V ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Percent of students at each Korea, Republic of 9.4 18.7 36.0 30.5 90.6 72.0 35.9 5.5 Canada (O.) 17.9 42.3 31.7 96.4 78.5 36.3 4.6 proficiency level across countries Australia 5.3 17.9 42.3 30.4 94.7 76.8 34.5 4.1 3 Netherlands 7.7 18.7 40.9 28.8 92.3 73.6 32.8 3.9 2 Canada (N. & L.) 7.3 23.6 40.3 25.1 92.7 69.1 28.8 3.7 KompetenzstufeLevel 1* I Poland 5.7 19.6 41.9 29.2 94.3 74.6 32.7 3.5 Czech Republic 13.2 47.6 34.5 98.2 84.9 37.4 2.9 Kompetenzstufe II 1 2 Level 2 Norway 19.3 45.8 27.4 95.2 75.9 30.1 2.7 2 3 Kompetenzstufe III Hong Kong SAR 15.1 22.7 36.5 23.1 84.9 62.3 25.7 2.7 Level 3 3 RG OECD 12.1 20.9 40.5 24.1 87.9 67.0 26.5 2.4 KompetenzstufeLevel 4 IV Denmark 17.4 45.8 30.3 96.0 78.6 32.8 2.4 Slovak Republic 12.1 20.7 40.1 24.8 87.9 67.2 27.1 2.3 Kompetenzstufe V Level 5 RG EU 8.1 21.6 43.3 24.8 91.9 70.3 27.0 2.2 International Average 17.0 22.7 37.6 20.7 83.0 60.3 22.7 2.0 3 6.1 23.7 45.2 23.1 93.9 70.2 25.0 2.0 Switzerland 2 5 Russian Federation 8.9 27.0 40.8 21.3 91.1 64.0 23.2 1.9 Croatia 11.3 24.6 41.8 20.8 88.7 64.1 22.3 1.5 * Level 1 in the national Germany 7.4 21.8 45.3 24.0 92.6 70.8 25.4 1.5 German report is “below Lithuania 14.7 30.4 38.9 14.9 85.3 54.9 16.0 1.1 Chile 17.5 29.5 39.6 12.9 82.5 53.0 13.4 0.5 level 1” in the international Slovenia 7.8 28.0 47.5 16.2 92.2 64.1 16.6 0.4 3 Argentina (B. A.) 30.6 34.2 27.5 7.4 69.4 35.2 7.7 0.3 report, level 2 refers to the 5 Thailand 64.4 23.5 10.6 35.6 12.1 1.6 0.1 international level 1 Turkey 67.1 23.6 8.4 32.9 9.4 1.0 0.1 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ II III IV V Almost 30 % of students below level 3 Only 1.5% reach the Percentage of students (rspct. Below level 2 with regard to the international scale) reaching at least this highest competence level level 6 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 Home background indicators and students‘ CIL in Germany • Socio-economic status and immigration background: strong negative effects (approx. 40 score points), as in other studies for Germany. • Gender: Girls outperform boys (16 score points), but much less than in reading literacy. 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 ParticipantAB Canada (N. & L.) 73.0 20.1 5.5 Frequency of computer use Australia 66.0 23.5 7.6 by teachers in classrooms in 1 Canada (O.) 57.0 32.1 7.9 1 Denmark 40.2 39.3 16.3 international comparison 1 Hong Kong 46.0 32.7 13.7 6.8 teacher statements in percent 1 Norway 35.9 42.0 16.4 5.3 1 Netherlands 57.8 19.6 11.2 6.6 2 Russian Federation 40.9 35.0 12.8 7.4 Republic Korea 51.9 23.7 15.0 7.1 Only 34.4 % of Lithuania 43.0 23.3 15.7 11.0 7.0 German teachers Slovenia 35.6 30.7 15.9 11.1 6.8 Czech Republic 26.7 38.9 19.1 11.1 report frequent RG OECD 34.2 30.4 18.7 11.6 5.1 computer use Chile 22.3 39.8 23.6 10.7 International Average 32.6 28.9 18.6 12.2 7.7 RG EU 30.0 28.8 19.9 13.9 7.4 Slovak Republic 22.7 35.0 23.3 13.2 5.7 Every Day Thailand 22.7 26.9 19.3 17.1 14.0 At least once a week but not every day Turkey 23.8 23.6 22.1 15.8 14.8 At least once a month but not every week Poland 18.4 23.1 25.3 23.4 9.9 Less than once a month Croatia 16.8 23.9 23.5 16.5 19.3 1 9.1 25.3 29.2 28.1 8.3 Never Germany 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Benchmark-Participants are highlighted in italic. 1 The overall teacher and school participation rate is below 75%. 2 Different point of measurement. A Differences in presented results may seem inconsistent because of rounding.. (cf. Eickelmann, Schaumburg, Drossel & Lorenz, 2014, p. 204) B Because of the low response rate to the teacher questionnaires, no results for Argentina (Buenos Aires) and for Switzerland are presented. 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 Explaining ICT use by teachers ß (SE) School characterisitcs Student-computer ratio -0,10* (0.04) Lack of IT-equioment 0.08 (0.04) Technical support for teachers 0.04 (0.05) Pedagogical supoort for teachers 0.06 (0.11) Particpation in PD measures/courses 0.07* (0.03) Self-estimated teacher competences 0.35* (0.04) Priority of using ICT in the school 0.20* (0.03) Positive attitututed towards the potential of ICT 0.12* (0.03) Teachers‘ background characteristics Age Teachers‘ competences -0.06* (0.03) most relevant from the Gender teachers‘ perspective -0.21* (0.03) R2 .32 9 (cf. Eickelmann, Schaumburg, Drossel & Lorenz, 2014, p. 204) 1. Germany’s key results of ICILS 2013 IT ressources in schools • Student-Computer-Ratio 11.5:1 (EU 11.6:1; Norway 2.4:1) • Mostly traditional settings (PCs based in special rooms). • Tablet-PCs available in classrooms for 6.5 per cent of students (EU 15.9%; Australia 63.6%) • Few interactive Whiteboards: Ø 5.5 per school, compared to 20.0 in Denmark and 25.5 in the Netherlands. Teachers‘ perspective on IT ressources More than 40 % of teachers are disatisfied by quantity and quality of IT ressources available in their school (e.g., slow internet connectivity, outdated machines, not enough machines). 10 Outline 1. for the national educational system provided by ICILS on the policy level shifts in educational agenda on national and federal state level 2. Dissemination of ICILS findings media, scientific community and practitioners 3. Outlook 11 2. Key element of dissemination: national report & publications • National report (336 pages) published as a book with online access on 20 November ‘14 (together with the international report) • Short version (30 pages.) focusing of selected findings and their implications for the national school and educational systems (target group: mass media and politicians aiming to get the results at a glance) • In addition: publications in journals for school practitioners and principals already published at the beginning of 2015 (focusing on school improvement) 12 2.